Talmud do Kapłańska 2:17

³¹Babli 47a, Menaḥot11a, Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata 9(6).“His full handful³²Lev. 2:2.. I could assume an overstuffed handful, the verse says, with his handful³³Lev. 6:8.. If with his handful, I could assume that he picks it up with his finger tips, the verse says, his full handful. How is this? He sinks his hand into the baking pan³⁴Lev. 2:5. or frying pan³⁵Lev. 2:7. and wipes clean with his finger from top to bottom.”

³¹Babli 47a, Menaḥot11a, Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata 9(6).“His full handful³²Lev. 2:2.. I could assume an overstuffed handful, the verse says, with his handful³³Lev. 6:8.. If with his handful, I could assume that he picks it up with his finger tips, the verse says, his full handful. How is this? He sinks his hand into the baking pan³⁴Lev. 2:5. or frying pan³⁵Lev. 2:7. and wipes clean with his finger from top to bottom.”

³¹Babli 47a, Menaḥot11a, Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata 9(6).“His full handful³²Lev. 2:2.. I could assume an overstuffed handful, the verse says, with his handful³³Lev. 6:8.. If with his handful, I could assume that he picks it up with his finger tips, the verse says, his full handful. How is this? He sinks his hand into the baking pan³⁴Lev. 2:5. or frying pan³⁵Lev. 2:7. and wipes clean with his finger from top to bottom.”

From where that weaves precede presentations¹⁶Mishnah Menaḥot 5:6 states that weave always precedes presentation. One has to wonder about Rashi’s Yerushalmi text since in his commentary to that Mishnah he follows R. Jeremiah.? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: They learned that from the case of the suspected wife¹⁷Since Num. 5:25 clearly prescribes first weave and then presentation.. Rebbi Yose said, the suspected wife is different because of its novelty and one cannot infer from anything that is different because of its novelty¹⁸While not in the tannaïtic rules, this is a generally recognized hermeneutical principle in both Talmudim; cf. Babli Ketubot 45a, Sanhedrin 27a. The novelty status of the suspected wife’s offering is explained in Mishnah 2:1; therefore, procedural instructions for this offering cannot imply similar instructions for the other flour offerings.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya understood it from the following¹⁹Lev. 6:7. This paragraph deals with technicalities of all flour offerings, whether they need weaving or not. Any special ceremony for certain offerings must precede the ceremonies common to all offerings.: “This is the teaching about the flour offering, present.” Where is the weave? It already preceded. Rebbi Yose said, explain it about flour offerings that do not need weaves; you cannot infer anything. Which [verse] says anything? “You shall bring,²⁰Lev. 2:8: “You shall bring the offering made from these to the Eternal; the Cohen shall bring it and present it to the altar.” “These” are flour and olive oil.
The baraita is also quoted in the Babli, Menaḥot 60b.” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that²¹Lev. 2:9.: “He shall lift a fist full”; where is the weave²²Which is prescribed for the offering of the suspected wife in Num.5:25..? It already preceded.

From where that weaves precede presentations¹⁶Mishnah Menaḥot 5:6 states that weave always precedes presentation. One has to wonder about Rashi’s Yerushalmi text since in his commentary to that Mishnah he follows R. Jeremiah.? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: They learned that from the case of the suspected wife¹⁷Since Num. 5:25 clearly prescribes first weave and then presentation.. Rebbi Yose said, the suspected wife is different because of its novelty and one cannot infer from anything that is different because of its novelty¹⁸While not in the tannaïtic rules, this is a generally recognized hermeneutical principle in both Talmudim; cf. Babli Ketubot 45a, Sanhedrin 27a. The novelty status of the suspected wife’s offering is explained in Mishnah 2:1; therefore, procedural instructions for this offering cannot imply similar instructions for the other flour offerings.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya understood it from the following¹⁹Lev. 6:7. This paragraph deals with technicalities of all flour offerings, whether they need weaving or not. Any special ceremony for certain offerings must precede the ceremonies common to all offerings.: “This is the teaching about the flour offering, present.” Where is the weave? It already preceded. Rebbi Yose said, explain it about flour offerings that do not need weaves; you cannot infer anything. Which [verse] says anything? “You shall bring,²⁰Lev. 2:8: “You shall bring the offering made from these to the Eternal; the Cohen shall bring it and present it to the altar.” “These” are flour and olive oil.
The baraita is also quoted in the Babli, Menaḥot 60b.” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that²¹Lev. 2:9.: “He shall lift a fist full”; where is the weave²²Which is prescribed for the offering of the suspected wife in Num.5:25..? It already preceded.

There, it was stated²⁴Mishnah Menaḥot7:1. The list contains the offerings of the ‘Omer and the suspected wife. Such a list is necessary since the flour offerings accompanying an animal sacrifice (Num. 15:1–16), as well as the private offerings of a Cohen, are burned completely.: “The following flour offerings have a handful taken and the remainders are eaten.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi [Samuel]²⁵This is the correct name. Possibly the name was written ר״ש in a common source of the mss. and was interpreted wrongly by some intermediate scribe. bar Rav Isaac were sitting together. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked from Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: From where [do we know that] the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten²⁶The paragraph of the ‘Omer offering (Lev. 23:9–14) prescribes weaving but is silent about anything done after the weaving. It might be concluded that the general rules of the flour offering specified in Lev. 6:7–11 do apply. These include that a Cohen has to present the offering to the altar, that he take a handful to the altar to be burned, and that the remainder be eaten under the rules of most holy sacrifices. However, those rules presuppose that pieces of incense are put on top of the offering; this does not apply to the ‘Omer offering. Therefore, the details of the treatment of the ‘Omer offering seem to be undefined.? He said to him: Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say²⁷Cf. Chapter 2, Note 39. in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Offering of²⁸Num. 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”., offering of²⁹Lev. 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text..” Since “offering of” mentioned there²⁸Num. 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”. is from barley, so also “offering of” mentioned here²⁹Lev. 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text. is from barley. Since the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten³⁰This is not prescribed in the biblical text but since a handful must be taken to the altar it is accepted that this offering follows the rules of all offerings of which a handful is burned on the altar; cf. Note 26., so the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten. Rebbi (Aqiba)³¹This attribution is certainly incorrect. Probably one should read “R. Jacob”; one Amora of this name was known as one of the colleagues of R. Jeremiah. said: After they got up, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal was standing with Rebbi Jeremiah. He³²Rebbi Jeremiah said to R. Abba bar Mamal. said to him: Look, how he made your question fly away! From where [do we know that] the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten³³For that offering also, the handful for the altar is mentioned but nothing else.? Rebbi Ze‘ira³⁴R. Jeremiah’s teacher; he called the specialist for baraitot in his academy. brought Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya, who stated for him: “Any flour offering mixed with oil³⁵Lev. 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about mixed wheat flour, it already had been said³⁶The list of private flour offerings from wheat flour is in Lev.2:1–10 and there it is emphasized that the remainders have to be eaten by the sons of Aaron.. So if it does not refer to mixed wheat flour, apply it to mixed barley flour. Another [baraita] states: “Or dry³⁵Lev. 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about dry wheat flour³⁷The purification offering of the poor sinner (Lev. 5:11–13) is from wheat flour and has to be eaten by the Cohen., it already had been said. So if it does not refer to dry wheat flour, apply it to dry barley flour. Rebbi Yose said, we deal with mixed wheat flour and dry wheat flour, and it was said for a purpose³⁸The argument of the preceding baraitot, which in the Babli (Menaḥot72b) is a pseudo-tannaïtic statement by Ḥizqiah, is irrelevant since the verse teaches important new information for all flour offerings that are eaten (also noted in the Babli).. “[It] shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.” A man takes his part even if he is blemished³⁹He has a bodily defect which disables him from serving in the Temple (Lev. 21:17–19).. A minor does not take a part even if he is unblemished⁴⁰Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 10(9); Babli Menaḥot 72b. In Zebaḥim 102a it is stated more in detail that the right of a blemished Cohen to eat of the holy food is established in Lev. 21 but his right to take part in the distribution of food in the Temple is derived from Lev. 6:11 [from Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 3(5)]. One really needs Lev. 7:10 only to show that a minor cannot claim a part in the distribution (cf. Šiṭṭa Mequbeṣet, Zebaḥim 102a).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Because the Torah added a detail in one case, can you add that in every case? But “remembrance⁴¹Lev. 2:9: “The Cohen has to lift its remembrance” which is the fistful of flour with the incense, to be burned on the altar., remembrance⁴²Num. 5:26: "The Cohen has to lift a fistful for its remembrance," speaking of the flour offering of the suspected wife.”. “You shall bring,²⁰Lev. 2:8: “You shall bring the offering made from these to the Eternal; the Cohen shall bring it and present it to the altar.” “These” are flour and olive oil.
The baraita is also quoted in the Babli, Menaḥot 60b.” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present it,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that⁴³While in the preceding paragraph the following verse was from the rules of the suspected wife, here the verse is taken from the general rules of a flour offering, Lev.2:10 to imply that every flour offering of which only a fistful is burned on the altar is eaten by the Cohanim.: “What is left from the offering is most holy for Aaron and his sons.”

There, it was stated²⁴Mishnah Menaḥot7:1. The list contains the offerings of the ‘Omer and the suspected wife. Such a list is necessary since the flour offerings accompanying an animal sacrifice (Num. 15:1–16), as well as the private offerings of a Cohen, are burned completely.: “The following flour offerings have a handful taken and the remainders are eaten.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi [Samuel]²⁵This is the correct name. Possibly the name was written ר״ש in a common source of the mss. and was interpreted wrongly by some intermediate scribe. bar Rav Isaac were sitting together. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked from Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: From where [do we know that] the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten²⁶The paragraph of the ‘Omer offering (Lev. 23:9–14) prescribes weaving but is silent about anything done after the weaving. It might be concluded that the general rules of the flour offering specified in Lev. 6:7–11 do apply. These include that a Cohen has to present the offering to the altar, that he take a handful to the altar to be burned, and that the remainder be eaten under the rules of most holy sacrifices. However, those rules presuppose that pieces of incense are put on top of the offering; this does not apply to the ‘Omer offering. Therefore, the details of the treatment of the ‘Omer offering seem to be undefined.? He said to him: Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say²⁷Cf. Chapter 2, Note 39. in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Offering of²⁸Num. 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”., offering of²⁹Lev. 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text..” Since “offering of” mentioned there²⁸Num. 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”. is from barley, so also “offering of” mentioned here²⁹Lev. 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text. is from barley. Since the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten³⁰This is not prescribed in the biblical text but since a handful must be taken to the altar it is accepted that this offering follows the rules of all offerings of which a handful is burned on the altar; cf. Note 26., so the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten. Rebbi (Aqiba)³¹This attribution is certainly incorrect. Probably one should read “R. Jacob”; one Amora of this name was known as one of the colleagues of R. Jeremiah. said: After they got up, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal was standing with Rebbi Jeremiah. He³²Rebbi Jeremiah said to R. Abba bar Mamal. said to him: Look, how he made your question fly away! From where [do we know that] the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten³³For that offering also, the handful for the altar is mentioned but nothing else.? Rebbi Ze‘ira³⁴R. Jeremiah’s teacher; he called the specialist for baraitot in his academy. brought Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya, who stated for him: “Any flour offering mixed with oil³⁵Lev. 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about mixed wheat flour, it already had been said³⁶The list of private flour offerings from wheat flour is in Lev.2:1–10 and there it is emphasized that the remainders have to be eaten by the sons of Aaron.. So if it does not refer to mixed wheat flour, apply it to mixed barley flour. Another [baraita] states: “Or dry³⁵Lev. 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about dry wheat flour³⁷The purification offering of the poor sinner (Lev. 5:11–13) is from wheat flour and has to be eaten by the Cohen., it already had been said. So if it does not refer to dry wheat flour, apply it to dry barley flour. Rebbi Yose said, we deal with mixed wheat flour and dry wheat flour, and it was said for a purpose³⁸The argument of the preceding baraitot, which in the Babli (Menaḥot72b) is a pseudo-tannaïtic statement by Ḥizqiah, is irrelevant since the verse teaches important new information for all flour offerings that are eaten (also noted in the Babli).. “[It] shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.” A man takes his part even if he is blemished³⁹He has a bodily defect which disables him from serving in the Temple (Lev. 21:17–19).. A minor does not take a part even if he is unblemished⁴⁰Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 10(9); Babli Menaḥot 72b. In Zebaḥim 102a it is stated more in detail that the right of a blemished Cohen to eat of the holy food is established in Lev. 21 but his right to take part in the distribution of food in the Temple is derived from Lev. 6:11 [from Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 3(5)]. One really needs Lev. 7:10 only to show that a minor cannot claim a part in the distribution (cf. Šiṭṭa Mequbeṣet, Zebaḥim 102a).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Because the Torah added a detail in one case, can you add that in every case? But “remembrance⁴¹Lev. 2:9: “The Cohen has to lift its remembrance” which is the fistful of flour with the incense, to be burned on the altar., remembrance⁴²Num. 5:26: "The Cohen has to lift a fistful for its remembrance," speaking of the flour offering of the suspected wife.”. “You shall bring,²⁰Lev. 2:8: “You shall bring the offering made from these to the Eternal; the Cohen shall bring it and present it to the altar.” “These” are flour and olive oil.
The baraita is also quoted in the Babli, Menaḥot 60b.” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present it,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that⁴³While in the preceding paragraph the following verse was from the rules of the suspected wife, here the verse is taken from the general rules of a flour offering, Lev.2:10 to imply that every flour offering of which only a fistful is burned on the altar is eaten by the Cohanim.: “What is left from the offering is most holy for Aaron and his sons.”

There, it was stated²⁴Mishnah Menaḥot7:1. The list contains the offerings of the ‘Omer and the suspected wife. Such a list is necessary since the flour offerings accompanying an animal sacrifice (Num. 15:1–16), as well as the private offerings of a Cohen, are burned completely.: “The following flour offerings have a handful taken and the remainders are eaten.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi [Samuel]²⁵This is the correct name. Possibly the name was written ר״ש in a common source of the mss. and was interpreted wrongly by some intermediate scribe. bar Rav Isaac were sitting together. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked from Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: From where [do we know that] the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten²⁶The paragraph of the ‘Omer offering (Lev. 23:9–14) prescribes weaving but is silent about anything done after the weaving. It might be concluded that the general rules of the flour offering specified in Lev. 6:7–11 do apply. These include that a Cohen has to present the offering to the altar, that he take a handful to the altar to be burned, and that the remainder be eaten under the rules of most holy sacrifices. However, those rules presuppose that pieces of incense are put on top of the offering; this does not apply to the ‘Omer offering. Therefore, the details of the treatment of the ‘Omer offering seem to be undefined.? He said to him: Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say²⁷Cf. Chapter 2, Note 39. in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Offering of²⁸Num. 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”., offering of²⁹Lev. 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text..” Since “offering of” mentioned there²⁸Num. 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”. is from barley, so also “offering of” mentioned here²⁹Lev. 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text. is from barley. Since the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten³⁰This is not prescribed in the biblical text but since a handful must be taken to the altar it is accepted that this offering follows the rules of all offerings of which a handful is burned on the altar; cf. Note 26., so the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten. Rebbi (Aqiba)³¹This attribution is certainly incorrect. Probably one should read “R. Jacob”; one Amora of this name was known as one of the colleagues of R. Jeremiah. said: After they got up, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal was standing with Rebbi Jeremiah. He³²Rebbi Jeremiah said to R. Abba bar Mamal. said to him: Look, how he made your question fly away! From where [do we know that] the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten³³For that offering also, the handful for the altar is mentioned but nothing else.? Rebbi Ze‘ira³⁴R. Jeremiah’s teacher; he called the specialist for baraitot in his academy. brought Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya, who stated for him: “Any flour offering mixed with oil³⁵Lev. 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about mixed wheat flour, it already had been said³⁶The list of private flour offerings from wheat flour is in Lev.2:1–10 and there it is emphasized that the remainders have to be eaten by the sons of Aaron.. So if it does not refer to mixed wheat flour, apply it to mixed barley flour. Another [baraita] states: “Or dry³⁵Lev. 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about dry wheat flour³⁷The purification offering of the poor sinner (Lev. 5:11–13) is from wheat flour and has to be eaten by the Cohen., it already had been said. So if it does not refer to dry wheat flour, apply it to dry barley flour. Rebbi Yose said, we deal with mixed wheat flour and dry wheat flour, and it was said for a purpose³⁸The argument of the preceding baraitot, which in the Babli (Menaḥot72b) is a pseudo-tannaïtic statement by Ḥizqiah, is irrelevant since the verse teaches important new information for all flour offerings that are eaten (also noted in the Babli).. “[It] shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.” A man takes his part even if he is blemished³⁹He has a bodily defect which disables him from serving in the Temple (Lev. 21:17–19).. A minor does not take a part even if he is unblemished⁴⁰Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 10(9); Babli Menaḥot 72b. In Zebaḥim 102a it is stated more in detail that the right of a blemished Cohen to eat of the holy food is established in Lev. 21 but his right to take part in the distribution of food in the Temple is derived from Lev. 6:11 [from Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 3(5)]. One really needs Lev. 7:10 only to show that a minor cannot claim a part in the distribution (cf. Šiṭṭa Mequbeṣet, Zebaḥim 102a).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Because the Torah added a detail in one case, can you add that in every case? But “remembrance⁴¹Lev. 2:9: “The Cohen has to lift its remembrance” which is the fistful of flour with the incense, to be burned on the altar., remembrance⁴²Num. 5:26: "The Cohen has to lift a fistful for its remembrance," speaking of the flour offering of the suspected wife.”. “You shall bring,²⁰Lev. 2:8: “You shall bring the offering made from these to the Eternal; the Cohen shall bring it and present it to the altar.” “These” are flour and olive oil.
The baraita is also quoted in the Babli, Menaḥot 60b.” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present it,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that⁴³While in the preceding paragraph the following verse was from the rules of the suspected wife, here the verse is taken from the general rules of a flour offering, Lev.2:10 to imply that every flour offering of which only a fistful is burned on the altar is eaten by the Cohanim.: “What is left from the offering is most holy for Aaron and his sons.”

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: ³⁹This sentence is also quoted in Halakhah 3:1. The argument refers to Lev. 2:14, where “a flour offering of first fruits” is mentioned which is identified as the ‘Omer offering (Lev. 23:9–14), traditionally brought from barley (since early in spring there is no wheat ready). The argument attempts to show that the offering mentioned in Lev. 2:14 must be the ‘omer offering of barley. The argument of R. Ismael is quoted only here because it cannot be sustained. The basis of the argument is the position that a word used in the legal parts of the Torah can only have one meaning. Since the construct form “flour offering of” used for the ritual of the suspected wife (Num. 5:15,16,18) refers to barley, it is concluded that the “flour offering of first fruits” also must refer to barley. The problem is that the construct state is also used in Lev. 2:7, 6:14,16; Num. 4:16, 28:8 clearly referring to wheat offerings.“Flour offering of, flour offering of.” Since “flour offering of” said there is of barley, here also it is of barley. ⁴⁰A slightly garbled version of a text dealing with the same problem, preserved in Sifra Wayyiqra Paršata 13(4). The reading Liezer for the first Tanna mentioned here, as against Lazar as suggested by the text, follows the reading of Sifra. Since this Tanna is mentioned before R. Aqiba, a reading of Lazar would refer to R. Eleazar ben ‘Arakh. Rebbi Eliezer said, it says here “milky white⁴¹Lev. 2:14, a word used in the description of the offering of first fruits. For the translation of אביב as “milky white”, see J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1991, pp. 192–194.” and it says in Egypt “milky white⁴²Ex. 9:31, referring to barley.”. Since “milky white” mentioned in Egypt refers to barley, here also it refers to barley. Rebbi Aqiba said, it was said to the public, bring first fruits on Passover and bring first fruits on Pentecost⁴³During or after the Holiday of Unleavened Bread (depending on the interpretation of the term “after the Sabbath”) the ‘Omer offering is required as “first harvest” (Lev. 23:9–14). Pentecost is described as “holiday of first fruits” (Num. 28:26).. ⁴⁴This text is slightly garbled. A more intelligible text is in Sifra (but one cannot exclude the possibility that the text in Sifra is Amoraic and has been edited to make it more intelligible) and the Babli, Menaḥot 68b: If we find that from the kind a private person brings his obligatory offering⁴⁵The only obligatory flour offerings of a private person are the purification offering of the poor (Lev. 5:11) and the offering for the suspected wife. The voluntary offerings of a private person are all high quality wheat. the public bring their first fruits on Pentecost. From which kind does the private person bring his obligatory offering? From barley! Also the public should bring only from barley. If you say from wheat, the Two Breads⁴⁶Two wheat breads made from sour dough to be presented to the altar but not burned, Lev. 23:17. These are called “First Fruits”. If the ‘Omer offering, whose nature is not specified in the verse, were to be brought from wheat, the Two Breads would not be baked from “First Fruits”. would not be first fruits.

“Otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘omer.” Rebbi Eleazar asked, may they⁹⁶If it is barley. be used to bring [next year’s] ‘omer? It is impossible to say so: Old and new produce, one does not give heave and tithe from one for the other, and you say so⁹⁷In this version, nothing sown before the New Year can be used for the ‘omer.? They objected, are there not the other kinds⁹⁸All grains which are not barley. which are dependent on the ‘omer but cannot be used for the ‘omer? No, what you said is for the other kinds which are never usable for the ‘omer; what can you say about barley which can be used for the ‘omer? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 23:10) “The first of your harvest,” not the last of your harvest. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Lev. 2:14) “First fruits,” these are not first fruits. What is the difference between them? If somebody transgressed and brought. In the opinion of the colleagues it is disqualified. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra it is acceptable⁹⁹It is explained in Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 15(1) that “first fruits” is a requirement that is waived if no ripe barley is found in the fields by Passover. Since it can be disregarded under certain circumstances this cannot be an absolute requirement.. The words of the Sages, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rabin bar Ḥiyya¹⁰⁰He is R. Abin bar Ḥiyya, student of R. Zeïra. That is only if it was one third ripe before New Year’s Day. But if it only was one third ripe after New Year’s Day, the ‘omer comes from it.

“Since the High Priest is first in line to sacrifice and to take his part first.” How is this? “¹⁶⁵Tosephta 1:5, Babli 17b. This skin is mine; one loaf of the Two Breads¹⁶⁶The two leavened breads as public offering on Pentecost., five loaves of the shew-bread.¹⁶⁷Of the 12 shew breads becoming available every Sabbath.” In one case he takes everything, in the other case he takes half? Rebbi Zeˋira said, in the first case, a private sacrifice, in the other case, a public sacrifice. It was stated:¹⁶⁵Tosephta 1:5, Babli 17b. “Rebbi said, I am saying that he takes only one half.” There are Tannaim who state, “Rebbi said, I am saying that he takes one half.” How is that? If there was one skin. The rabbis say, he takes it whole. Rebbi said, I am saying that he takes only one half. If there were four, five skins. The rabbis say, he takes one¹⁶⁸Since the Mishnah states that he takes “a part”.. Rebbi said, I am saying that he takes half. What is Rebbi’s reason? The remainder of the offering is for Aaron and his sons¹⁶⁹Lev. 2:3. Sifra Wayyiqra I Pereq11(1).. Do we not know that Aaron is together with his sons? Why does the verse say¹⁷⁰Lev. 24:9 (on the shew-bread); Sifra Emor Pereq 18(10)., for Aaron and his sons? But it means, Aaron shall take half of it and his sons shall take half.

This implies that one item which was mentioned separately by necessity does not divide¹³⁶Since we found a reason why the item was mentioned one cannot infer that it is established as a separate rule.. If it was mentioned not by necessity it divides¹³⁷It is a general hermeneutical rule (No. 4) that two parallel items are just that, two separate items, and no additional inferences or comparisons are possible. If both are prohibitions, infractions generate separate liabilities.. If two items were mentioned separately, do they divide? Let us hear from the following: From where that he transgresses a prohibition whoever brings to the altar meat of a purification offering¹³⁸For purification and reparation offerings, blood is sprinkled on the altar and fat is burned. The meat must be eaten by the priests; it cannot be sacrificed., or meat of a reparation offering, or meat of most holy offerings¹³⁹Most holy offerings are elevation offerings which are completely burned, purification and reparation offerings already mentioned, and the public well-being offering accompanying the Two Leavened Breads on Pentecost which introduce the season of the wheat harvest. Only the last item can be meant here, where the meat also must be eaten by the priests., or meat from simply holy offerings¹⁴⁰The family sacrifices, of which only blood and fat are given to the altar, Lev. Chapter 3., or the remainder of the ˋOmer¹⁴¹The barley offering on the Festival of Unleavened Bread, of which a handful is burnt on the altar and the remainder must be eaten by the priests. Lev. 23:10. or the Two Breads¹⁴²The Two Breads to be brought on Pentecost, to be eaten by the priests with the meat of the public well-being offering (Note 139). Lev. 23:17., or the Shew Bread¹⁴³Of which the incense is burned on the altar; the bread itself has to be eaten by the priests, Lev. 24:5–9., or remainders of cereal offerings¹⁴⁴To be eaten by the priests after a handful was burned on the altar, Lev. Chapter 2., or leaven¹⁴⁵This again refers to the Two Breads, the only leavened offering., or date honey¹⁴⁶Which as an offering of first fruits is consumed by the priest after being presented to the altar but not brought onto the altar. Deut. 26:2.? The verse says¹⁴⁷Lev. 2:12., for any leaven or any date honey you may not turn into smoke as a fire gift to the Eternal. Therefore anything that had been given to the fire is under “do not turn into smoke”¹⁴⁸If any part or appendix had to be given to the fire on the altar, there is a prohibition to put any of the remainder on the altar..

Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan. Should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp¹⁴⁹The ramp on which the priest ascends to the altar since it is forbidden to build steps to the altar (Ex. 20:22). The ramp was physically separated from the altar.? He told him, it follows what was stated, the altar¹⁵⁰Lev. 2:12: As an offering of first fruits you may offer them to the Eternal but on the alter they shall not ascend for pleasant scent., this means not only the altar, from where to include the ramp? The verse says¹⁵⁰Lev. 2:12: As an offering of first fruits you may offer them to the Eternal but on the alter they shall not ascend for pleasant scent., on the altar they shall not be lifted. I could think neither as an act of worship nor as act of worship. The verse says¹⁵⁰Lev. 2:12: As an offering of first fruits you may offer them to the Eternal but on the alter they shall not ascend for pleasant scent., as aroma smell, I was saying this only as an act of worship¹⁵¹Since the ramp is inclined, stepping on the ramp in the course of a service would be “ascend for pleasant scent” and is forbidden. But depositing the first fruits on the ramp while the priest remains standing on the floor of the Temple court until he takes them to be consumed is not covered by the prohibition. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 1(11).. (He retorted,)¹⁵²An addition from the corrector; this has to be deleted since the next paragraph shows that the speaker still is R. Joḥanan; the following is a continuation of the baraita quoted. them is a restriction¹⁵³Anything other than leaven and date honey is not covered by the verse.. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp. Because it is written them. If them had not been written, it would instruct¹⁵⁴Then leaven and date honey would just be examples of items to be consumed by the priests.. That means, two items which were mentioned separately do (not)¹⁵⁵A correction by the scribe himself but in error as shown by the next paragraph. separate¹⁵⁶To prohibit burning on the altar what must be consumed by priests or laity it would have been enough to give one example. Since two were given, it implies that bringing to the altar is a separate sin for each of them (and equally all others).. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, they do not separate, therefore they instruct¹⁵⁷Since they are mentioned in one verse they are not two independent items; previous argument is not applicable. Since it is a single item it permits inference for all sancta..

¹⁵³A copy of this text, except for the last sentence, is in Shevi`it9:7, Notes 95–97. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: If he said, I am obligated [to offer] a log, does he bring one log? Rebbi Eleazar said, a Mishnah says that each one is a separate sacrifice, as we have stated¹⁵⁴Mishnah Yoma 2:5., “two, holding in their hands two wooden logs.” This adds single logs.

¹⁴⁶Tosephta Ḥallah 2:7–9, Babli Baba Qama 110b, Ḥulin 132b, Sifry Qoraḥ #119 (“12 in the Temple, 12 in the countryside”), Midrash Tanḥuma Bemidbar 24, Num. rabba 5(1).24 gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten in the countryside. These are the ten in the Temple: Purification offering¹⁴⁷Lev. 6:19., reparation offering¹⁴⁸Lev. 7:7., public well-being offerings¹⁴⁹Lev. 23:19. Even though this sacrifice is labelled “well-being offering”, being a public offering it is treated as most holy and must be eaten by Cohanim in the Temple precinct., purification offering of a bird¹⁵⁰While there is no separate verse commanding that the purification offering of a bird must be eaten, since the burnt offering of a bird is consumed on the altar it follows that the purification offering must be eaten., the reparation offering for suspected guilt¹⁵¹Lev5:17–18., the log of oil of the skin-diseased¹⁵²Lev 14:10,21. The unused part of the oil becomes property of the Cohen., the two breads¹⁵³Lev. 23:17., the shew-bread¹⁵⁴Lev. 24:9., the remainders of cereal offerings¹⁵⁵Lev. 2:3, 6:9–11., and the ‘omer¹⁵⁶Lev. 23:10–11.. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings¹⁵⁷While these are sacrifices, after the blood was sprinkled on the altar wall the animal was eaten by the Cohen and his family anywhere in the city., First Fruits¹⁵⁸Cf. Mishnah Bikkurim 3:10., what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazir’s ram¹⁵⁹In fact, any part lifted for the Cohen from any well-being sacrifice is for the Cohen and his entire family, to be eaten outside the Temple precinct. Cf. Lev. 7:34, Num. 18:11., and the skins of sacrifices¹⁶⁰Only of most holy sacrifices (burnt, purification, and reparation offerings); Lev. 7:8.. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, ḥallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷Deut. 18:3., the first shearing¹⁶¹Deut. 18:4., robbery of the proselyte¹⁶²Num. 5:8. It is assumed that the only person without legal heirs is the proselyte who had no children after his conversion., redemption of the firstborn¹⁶³Ex. 13., redemption of the firstborn donkey¹⁶³Ex. 13., ḥērem-dedications, and fields of inheritance¹⁶⁴Dedicated and not redeemed; Lev. 27:16–21..